1. Where a policy oí firе insurance, issued in favor of the owner of property, contаins what is known as the “ordinary” or “open” mortgage clause, merely pi'oviding that loss, if any, shall be paid to a named mortgagee as his interest may appear, this stipulation is merely collaterаl to the principal undertaking in favor of the mortgagor, and the mоrtgagee becomes simply an -appointee of the fund, with nо greater rights than those of the assured under whom he must claim, and any brеach of the terms of the contract of insurance which would cause a lapse as against the one assured will operаte to avoid the- policy as against the mortgagee. May on Insurance, § 379; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 202, 250; 2 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, 1520, 1521; Brecht v. Law Union &c. Ins. Co.,
2. But where to the policy of insurance there is attached in favor of the mortgagee whаt is known as the “New York standard mortgagee clause,” by the terms of whiсh it is provided that the interest of the mortgagee shall not be invalidаted by reason of any act or neglect on the part of the mortgagor, this agreement operates as a separаte and distinct contract of insurance upon the mortgageе’s interest, and gives to the mortgagee such an independent status as might authorize a recovery by him on the policy even though the circumstances were such as .would prevent a recovery by the mortgagor. 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 205; 2 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, 1228, 1525.
3. Where such a fоrm of agreement in favor of the mortgagee provides alsо that the mortgagee shall notify the company of any change of ownership in the property which shall come to his knowledge, and that if this is not done the policy shall become void, the absоlute conveyance of the property by the owner to one whose interest is not covered by the terms of the insurance, whеre the mortgagee has knowledge of the conveyance but fails to notify the company, renders the policy void even аs to him. Continental Insurance Co. v. Anderson, 107 Ga. 541 (2), 544 (
4. But in order that the-policy shall be terminated by reason of a change in ownership of the property, the conveyance by the owner must be to a person who by the terms, of the poliсy is npt himself insured; and since, under the last-mentioned form of stipulation, the interest of the mortgagee is expressly covered by separate and distinct agreement, the mere acceleration of his interest by a direct conveyance of the title to him would not work a forfeiture of his rights as one of the assured, even though notiсe be not given to the company of such’ increase in interеst in the property' already insured in his favor by the terms of the poliсy. 2 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, 1722, 1758. See also, in this connection, Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Liddell Co., supra, and 1 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, 213.
5. Under the rules of law above stated, the amendment to the defendаnt’s answer set forth no ground, of defense to the action brought under the policy, and the judgment of the superior court, sustaining the certiorari, is i Affirmed.